This reminded me of a comment from CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou;
"It was my experience at the CIA where literally every Israeli prime minister since the 1980s would come to Washington, which they do all the time, and no matter who happened to be in the White House, they would say 'Please bomb Iran, please bomb Iran, please bomb Iran.' And every president would say 'We're not going to do that.' Until this president..." [39:15]
The article does not say anything about F-droid. However, there was discussion about this a few months ago;
F-Droid and Google's developer registration decree
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45409794
F-Droid warns that Google's new "Developer Verification System" will require all Android app developers, even those outside the Play Store, to register personal data and pay a fee to Google to remain installable. The project argues this mandate threatens the existence of free and open-source ecosystems like F-Droid by ending anonymous development and stripping users of the right to choose their own software.
So that is one threat to what we have now. Right now you can install an APK that you trust and have been using for years.
What the article does say is that Samsung is removing several core options from the Android recovery menu, including the ability to sideload updates via ADB or SD cards and the "wipe cache partition" tool. While the reason for this change remains unconfirmed, it appears to be a permanent security policy shift tied to the One UI 8.5 update and the February 2026 security patch.
So why does this matter? Well some users like nocturn9x [0] have been able to take back control of their devices by installing:
1. An Unlocked Boot Loader.
2. An Unlocked OneUI/ROM
3. And then F-droid style installs are not problem.
Specifically, you can still install your trusted APK if you perform these steps, own a device where the hardware eFuses have not been blown and decline "Play Protect" nag screens and OneUI updates.
Yes, and it is very easy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46223051 "Flash a driver's license at a liquor store to buy a single-use token" And to save a debate, you can swap the phrase "liquor store" for "store" aka supermarket/grocery store.
I'll play along, so here is the counterpoint.
The article remarks on end of an era during which he transformed a failing textile mill into a global conglomerate valued at over $1 trillion.
So he never made anything? Wrong, textile mills make things.
Elsewhere in the comments someone links BuffettsAlpha.pdf
This explains that they used a 1.6-to-1 leverage refers to the estimate of the average amount of borrowed capital Warren Buffett uses to magnify the returns.
This level of leverage means that for every $1.00 of equity, Buffett manages approximately $1.60 in total assets.
It explains why Berkshire experiences high volatility (roughly 25%) despite investing in relatively stable, low-risk businesses.
A significant portion of this leverage—estimated at 36% of liabilities—comes from insurance float. This is essentially a "loan" that costs Berkshire an average of only 2.2% annually, which is more than 3 percentage points below the average T-bill rate.
So why does this matter? Unlike many investors who might face forced liquidations during market downturns, Buffett's unique access to stable, low-cost financing allows him to maintain this leverage even during significant drawdowns.
So yes, he chose the right "cronies" because during inevitable downturn the money was still there to be used to run these low risk stable business.
Do people idolise him? No need to debate that but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Why did he continue to live a simple life while he has pledged that 99.5% of his wealth will go to philanthropic causes either during his lifetime or at the time of his death.
So I do think you "got that right", however you may have missed that he started with a factory that makes things, invested in a way that survived adversity, and then plans to deliver on the principle that his wealth belongs to society rather than to a "family empire."
I do wonder how you or I would handle running a business. To me that work does not sound easy.
..."Indyke, an attorney who represented Epstein for decades, has not been criminally indicted by federal authorities. He was hired by the Parlatore Law Group in 2022, before the justice department settled the Epstein case. That firm represents the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, and previously represented Donald Trump in his defense against charges stemming from the discovery of classified government documents stored at Trump’s Florida estate."...
Projectivy Launcher, for Nvidia Shield Home Screen.
Before that I was building a rooted firmware and downgrading from that awful advert ridden update. I also tried Dispatch as a home screen replacement, but Projectivy wins.
Christian (includes Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist) 59.5%, Muslim 4.4%, Hindu 1.3%, other 2%, unspecified 7.2%, none 25.7% (2011 est.)
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
What happened to curl?
The comment is referring to how the curl project is being overwhelmed by low-quality bug/vulnerability reports generated (or partially generated) by AI (“AI slop”), so much so that curl maintainers are now banning reporters who submit such reports and demanding disclosure, because these sloppy reports cost a lot of time and drain the team.
The episode shows how even small overdoses of acetaminophen can cause fatal liver damage, while decades of FDA delays and confusing drug labeling left millions of Americans at risk.
Here is a quote from Facebook/Meta's legal council to the Judge.
In this document "Advertisers" refers to Snapchat, YouTube and Amazon.
"... the Wiretap Act provides that an interception is not unlawful if a party to the
communication “has given prior consent to such interception.” 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). Advertisers
conspicuously fail to mention—and apparently do not contest—that Meta obtained participants’
prior consent to participate in the Facebook Research App, and with good reason: Participants
affirmatively consented to “Facebook … collecting data about [their] Internet browsing activity
and app usage” to enable Facebook to “understand how [they] browse the Internet, how [they] use
the features in the apps [they’ve] installed, and how people interact with the content [they] send
and receive."